Inconceivable

With Nicolas Cage in the film I was expecting it to have some action in it, which is typical of many of his films more recently. It doesn't. What it does have is solid acting by excellent actors (including Cage) and a fascinating story where you are ever quite sure which way the film will go. Overall I think this is a good drama that is well worth seeing. If I had bothered to read the synopsis properly I may not have watched it - but I am glad I did. I don't know why some people have a problem with the production - it is good and complements the story perfectly. Well worth seeing.

The film opens up with Katie (Nicky Whelan) with dark hair, stabbing a man who is attempted to choke her. Is she the victim or the crime? Later blonde Katie meets Brian (Nicolas Cage) and Angela (Gina Gershon) who are both successful doctors. The film gives you flashbacks and information so that you quickly know where the script is going. The mystery aspect for the audience is nil. There was no decent character development for the couple and Nicolas Cage was one of them. I thought Rebecca De Mornay would have made a better grandmother than Faye Dunaway considering her previous role rocking the cradle, which I was thinking about 10 minutes into the film. Then there was the weird kitchen scene near the end and the murder which would seem to warrant a police investigation that we never saw. Guide: Brief F-word, quick FF sex scene, nudity (Nicky Whelan, Corrie Danieley)

I suppose this might have been considered a good movie, maybe 20 years or so ago. It's not badly done, the acting is fine, it's just that the story line is so trite. Obsession, surrogate mothers, whose baby is whose? It's all been done before and so often. Gina Gershon looks good, really good. She is like a fine wine, improving with age. Nick Cage's hair is so obviously dyed dark black, it looks quite silly on him. I guess Nick's leading man days are drawing to a close. One could easily have considered this a good watch except for the fact that the scenario has been done to death, which tends to make it all too predictable. There are worse ways to spend an hour and 45 minutes I guess, but, in the end, Inconceivable is a totally forgettable offering.

The most inconceivable thing about this film is somebody having such an incredibly flat stomach and being so mobile right after having a C-section. In all seriousness, this absurdity is something that needs to be addressed in the film industry but there we go... Otherwise, the story is interesting enough, relatively slow-paced (running time needn't have been so long - not that it was long, but it was too long for what this film is). There were unnecessary sub-plots. Acting was OK, Nicky Whelan is used to doing over-the-top dramatic plots from her time on Neighbours, so did perfectly well here. Why have an A-lister like NC involved? Why not, I suppose. All in all, it was pretty meh. Another user likened it to a Lifetime movie and they hit the nail on the head. Lifetime movies are an occasional guilty pleasure of mine, so I finished the film more or less satiated. Just don't see Nick Cage's name and think you're getting a blockbuster.

OK, there might be some flaws in the acting/directing and somehow the end could have been more surprising, but yet it's better than most of the movies we're used to see nowadays. It reminds me a lot of The hand that rocks the craddle. Nicolas Cage is under-exploited (he looks more and more like John Cusack, or is it just me?) and quite slow. I don't see the point of hiring him for such a bland part, that any C-rated actor could have performed. Nicky Whelan overplays it (ok, she's way better-looking than Glenn Close, but not as spooky as she was in Fatal Attraction, sorry dear). The twist, not so twisted but it does the job. So I will give it an 8 for effort + the entertainment + suspense + the fact that I wanted to see it till the end (most movies I don't, or fast-play them).

I rarely write reviews but I feel obligated to give one because it was the reviews that I gave this movie a chance. First of all, what twist? The plot was so obvious and predictable. I was not surprised whatsoever at any point of the movie. Second, the story was not realistic in my opinion. The characters behave in a stupid way most of the time which made it hard for me to associate with any of them. The husband is way too unsupportive and still portrayed to be a good one at the end. So, in short, if you enjoy only very well written and directed, realistic movies with real twists, stay away from this one!

Slow, poorly directed, stilted acting. I watched because several reviews said the twist at the end made up for the poor movie. I've now finished watching, and was the twist that there was no twist? Don't waste your time. I should give it a one, but I have seen worse movies. It had something that made me kept watching, but perhaps that was simply the misleading reviews that had me waiting for something worth watching.

This straight to DVD Nicolas Cage affair is certainly less "Actiony" than what we have grown accustomed to over the past few years. Rejoining Gina Gershon he delves into thriller territory and though the story has been done before they do a decent enough job. What threw me was the initial swerve, the movie opens one way and quickly u-turns. When the twist came I'll be truthful I didn't expect it. Also starring former WWE "Wrestler" (And I use that term very loosely) Eva Marie who I immediately mistook for a Kardashian. Credit where credit is due she put in a decent enough performance but being a wrestling fan I see her and I just see a train wreck. Harmless enough feature which all comes together well in the end even if it does feel somewhat recycled. The Good: One Eva Marie scene that every WWE fan will appreciate Gina Gershon The Bad: Eva Marie Things I learnt from this movie: Eva Marie is a better actress than a wrestler Gina Gershon has access to the fountain of youth

You will note several ten-star reviews, clearly written by the director or his cronies. So, skip those - how do I know this? Because this is what they do - and no one could be that stupid as to give this film ten stars. Then he has thousands of his nearest and dearest friends upvote it on the main page. There is no need to pontificate on how bad this film - the script is horrible, the photography is digital (and I don't mean that as a positive), and I can't feel for Nicolas Cage because he obviously enjoys the dough and likes working. Faye Dunaway was clearly bamboozled by the moron director - clearly. She should, at this point, take a leaf from Jane Fonda's book and attempt to not slum. Because when you slum like this, no one will hire you to do something worthwhile. BTW, the "director" described this to the press as a comeback role for her. Uh huh. She has maybe six minutes of screen time. Gina Gershon, as others point out, gives it her all, but I've never thought much of her all and even if she were Meryl Streep there is simply nothing to be done with either the character or the insufferable dialogue. I found Nicky Whelan ever so annoying, all schmacting all the time. So where does all this end up? Correct, the director, someone named Jonathan Baker. a) he is a terrible director. b) he is a terrible director, and c) he is also a terrible actor who put himself in this film. Oh, and d) he is a terrible director and, having read up on him, a man of limitless chutzpah and ego. What else is new? The man's claim to fame is The Amazing Race. He has exactly five acting credits, one feature film credit (this one) and that's it. So how exactly did he bamboozle these actors and the people who funded the film? Well, apparently he has money from somewhere - his wife perhaps? Family? Because apparently he put in a million bucks of his own money. Well, that's one way to direct a film. He's also apparently funding a documentary about - him. I'm not making this up, folks. This guy is everything that's wrong with the movies today and hopefully after the failure of this wretched film we will not be subjected to another film from him. The film cost twelve million dollars with, I'm sure, a good deal of that going to the actors he "bought". Certainly none of it went into the filming, which took fifteen days. Who can blame Mr. Cage for taking a large check like that? Or Ms. Dunaway? Or Ms. Gershon? And the film's gross? Under $300,000. So, a complete and utter disaster. I found exactly two legit reviews - the LA Times and the Hollywood Reporter - both hugely negative as they should be - sorry, Mr. Baker, money can't buy that for you. Shame on you and shame on everyone involved. Learn how to read a script and just say no. Learn anything, but stop wasting people's time. Finally, to the morons and friends of the director who loved the "twist" at the end - what twist? There was no twist at the end. Just shameless lying by the screenwriter/director to get you to believe one thing when another is true. That's not a twist, that's idiocy. And there you have it.

Let me first start out by saying....What happened to Nick Cage? I've always been a fan of his early work before he sold out to "the Big Hoolywood Production's", obviously for the $$. He has made some good films over the past 15-20 years, but his no nonsense, more guts then glory approach to his choice of films has died a long time ago. Also, he HAS to own a mirror in at least one of his 25? Homes. Does he see that hair transplants and plastic surgery has ruined his chances of aging gracefully and true to himself looking like a pulled on and stretched out hormonal mess? OK, I had to get that off my chest. To give a fair and Short review of "Inconceivable", I have to first state this film is suspiciously much like a poor remake of "hand that rocks the cradle", a far superior movie. Of course, there are variations to the plot and story line, however, this is a newer version that attempts (and fails) to deliver an original story with a few more Sub Plots going on but at a VERY..SLOW.....PACE....... For the guys out there that may see this film (myself included) there is plenty of "eye candy". A few decent gratuitous * scenes and despite Gena Gershon's age, she still oozes sex appeal. To that end, the film is flimsy, predictable and disingenuous in its delivery. Things are wrapped up too neatly and although there is a very slight twist at the films end, I had predicted it 10 minutes before the truth was revealed. The acting was sub par, the story, well, Boring. The characters sort of meander through their roles like they can't wait to get back to their respective trailers. I gave this film a 5 because it was not a total waste of time. It did have some moments that were worth a continued look. But, it just kept crashing into walls every time it seemed it would pick up. Nick, I see your pumping out four to five films a year over the past several years. I know you are a big believer in......"who ever dies with the most toys at the end, wins", but, for heavens sake, read a script before taking your next film. It seems the days of "leaving Las Vegas and Moonstruck" are 25 years in your rear mirror. Despite uncle Francis getting you into the film industry, I was and always have been a fan of your work. Then you made "face off" and it was pretty much down hill from there. This is an OK film and even better if you haven't seen "Hand that Rocks the Cradle". But, if you do watch this and have a chance to view "HTRTC", you be the judge. The latter is much much better and very similar.